About the Seminar

October 09, 2018 3:00pm—7:30pm

With technologies like self-driving vehicles and proposals like tourist trips to the moon, science fiction is rapidly becoming science reality. How should science policy govern this rapidly approaching future? Who should be involved, what tools do we need, and how do we prepare the next generation of leaders?

Exploring Democratic Governance: Solar Geoengineering Research*3:00 – 4:30 pmA mini-deliberation on the future of solar geoengineering research. This deliberation draws on our recent project, funded by the Sloan Foundation, to better understand public perspectives on a controversial approach to addressing climate change. How can participatory technology assessment (pTA) help bring public values into difficult and complex science policy decisions?

Network of Nodes

Ever since the first American spacecraft went orbital in 1958, NASA's craft have communicated by radio with mission control on Earth using a group of large antennas known as the Deep Space Network. For a few lonely probes talking to the home planet, that worked fine. In the decades since then, as NASA and other space agencies have accumulated dozens of satellites, probes, and rovers on or around other planets and moons, the Deep Space Network has become increasingly noisy. It now negotiates complex scheduling protocols to communicate with more than 100 spacecraft.

Most rovers (both lunar and Martian) talk to the Deep Space Network in one of two ways: by sending data directly from the rover to Earth or by sending data from the rover to an orbiter, which then relays the data to Earth. Although the latter method is wildly more energy efficient because the orbiters have larger solar arrays and antennas, it can still be error-prone, slow, and expensive to maintain.

The future of space travel demands better communication. The pokey pace at which our current Martian spacecraft exchange data with Earth just isn't enough for future inhabitants who want to talk to their loved ones back home or spend a Saturday binge-watching Netflix. So NASA engineers have begun planning ways to build a better network. The idea is an interplanetary internet in which orbiters and satellites can talk to one another rather than solely relying on a direct link with the Deep Space Network, and scientific data can be transferred back to Earth with vastly improved efficiency and accuracy. In this way, space internet would also enable scientific missions that would be impossible with current communications tech.

Exploratory learning can be defined as an approach to teaching and learning that encourages learners to examine and investigate new material with the purpose of discovering relationships between existing background knowledge and unfamiliar content and concepts.

The direct link to the Interplanetary Initiative’s Exploratory Learning module is here.

Through exploration learning, learners should:

Recognize and be unafraid of unsolved problems,

Be curious about what is known and how we know it,

Be willing to work toward answers in steps over time,

Develop independence and initiative in working toward solutions,

Have patience with ambiguity,

Have patience with dead ends (“failures”) and thus build resilience,

Understand the difference between a problem they have not solved, and a problem no one has solved,

Practice listening and respecting the contributions of teammates and

Experience knowledge creation.

During exploration learning, learners should do one or more of:

Practice asking questions,

Learn how to improve their questions,

Solve problems that require multiple steps and may not have single answers,

Identify and tackle problems whose solution is not known to the team or instructor (knowledge creation),

Obtain and assess the quality of the content they use to reach answers,

Assess the quality of the answers they produce, and

Work in interdisciplinary groups where all voices contribute.

What is a Planetary Skin?

The launch of Planetary Skin by NASA and Cisco Inc., a new platform for measurement, reporting and verification is hoped to enable the unlocking of US$350 billion per year in 2010–2020 for mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

Planetary Skin is a global-monitoring system of environmental conditions intended to help effective decision making with data collected from various sources which includes space, airborne, maritime, terrestrial and people-based sensor networks. It is then analyzed, verified and reported over an open standards based Web 2.0 and 3.0 collaborative spaces.

Useful Links

Cisco and NASA R&D public that cuts across institutional, disciplinary, and national boundaries and create a space for flexible pooling of assets and ideas between stakeholder networks.

Planetary Skin Institute is a bridge between organizations like the World Economic Forum, NASA, and the University of Minnesota. It takes in massive amounts of data from space-to-mud-to-ocean sensors. And it uses experts and big data analytics to help emerging market governments know things like where to build infrastructure and where droughts will hit.

Its latest project: Developing virtual weather stations using “exhaust” cell phone data. And helping the government of Brazil create a national monitoring and early warning system for natural disasters–a system few countries have, but all need.

:

One notable example of these risk management and prevention tools: new virtual weather stations currently being tested by Planetary Skin Institute and their partners.

In a breakthrough in environmental sensing and a new way to use junk data, the team uses “exhaust data” from cell phone towers to predict weather conditions by monitoring the speed of radio waves as they travel through humid air. This allows sensing of local environmental conditions anywhere there are cell towers–places that rarely have weather monitoring right now because traditional weather stations are too costly or the locations are too remote. It sounds simple, but it is critically important. Tracking the weather allows data scientists to connect that with all sorts of other information and, most immediately, to predict things like landslides. And to do so for people who live in the areas nearest the towers–typically shantytowns where populations are at greatest risk.

The project in Brazil has been running successfully for two years. If it continues to work, it is a risk management approach and toolkit that Planetary Skin Institute is planning to bring to the rest of the world–the next step in their evolution.

Complexity and uncertainty are hallmarks of the early 21st century, as recent developments in the global financial markets demonstrate all too vividly. Responses to the financial crisis have prominently featured demands for global coordination. Our economic woes, however, are dwarfed by the increasing threats of climate change and environmental degradation— and their attendant miseries, such as pandemics and poverty. Unprecedented global coordination and collaboration are the only ways to address these environmental dangers.

Actionable consensus on addressing climate change is now evident in public policy announcements from global leaders, and in the coalescing of private and public opinion that the world needs to address quickly and decisively the varied perils created by man-made climate change. At the World Economic Forum in 2009, public and private sector leaders outlined three basic requirements for mitigating and adapting to changing climate: (1) targets for countries that effectively put a price on carbon; (2) large-scale predictable and sustainable financing for mitigation and adaptation strategies, and, critically (3) the creation of a globally trusted mechanism for measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV).

While measurement is third on the list, it is the essential precondition to any creation of value, or to unlock financial flows. The simple axiom that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure” holds true—especially for the most complex challenges.

NASA and Cisco Systems Inc. are developing "Planetary Skin" -- a marriage of satellites, land sensors and the Internet -- to capture, analyze and interpret global environmental data. Under terms of an agreement announced during a Capitol Hill climate summit today, NASA and Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO) will develop the online collaborative platform to process data from satellite, airborne and sea- and land-based sensors around the globe.

The goal is to translate the data into information that governments and businesses can use to mitigate and adapt to climate change and manage energy and natural resources more effectively, NASA and Cisco officials explained in interviews.

"There are a lot of data out there, but we have to turn that into information," explained S. Pete Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center. "What we are trying to do is use Cisco's expertise in data handling, put our data in there and explain what's really going on in the rainforests."

Indeed, the partners' first project, "Rainforest Skin," will focus on integrating a comprehensive sensor network in rainforests around the world. The project will examine how to capture, analyze and present information about the changes in the level of carbon dioxide -- the main heat-trapping gas -- in the Amazon and other areas. Information will be posted on the project's Web site.

Other projects during the next 18 months will look at changes in land use and water, Worden noted.

"This will begin to give us a sense of, if we pass cap and trade, is it working," he added.

Now about the project's name: "There are many layers of skin, of information, and this will help us understand all of the interconnected data," explained Worden, whose agency provides continuous global observations using satellites and other spacecraft.

Juan Carlos Castilla-Rubio, who directs Cisco's climate change practice, said the information should help companies manage environmental and financial risks in a carbon-constrained world.

"It's providing the support platforms for people to make decisions because today we fly blind," added Castilla-Rubio, whose San Jose, Calif.-based company specializes in Internet Protocol networking.

The Center for Global Development has developed a Web site of its own, called Carma (Carbon Monitoring for Action), which tracks emissions from 50,000 power plants around the world. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit research organization is also developing a way to monitor emissions savings from forest conservation.

"These investments in information now are absolutely critical," said Nancy Birdsall, the center's president, who participated in today's summit with Cisco Chairman and CEO John Chambers. "We have to create that information and track it over time if we're going to have any kind of system at a global level that people in this country and other countries can trust."

"We'll have to have ... something akin to independent monitoring," she added.

Of Angels and Uberveillance: The Point of View Continuum in Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire

By M.G. Michael and Katina Michael

Abstract: Uberveillance is an omnipresent form of 24/7 surveillance of humans based on widespread electronic devices, and especially computer chips embedded into the body. It is akin to a planetary skin that is able to pinpoint any living (or deceased) individual in near real-time anywhere on the earth’s surface. In its ultimate form it is big brother on the inside looking out. Uberveillance was once impossible given patchy infrastructure- a world without networks and global position systems (GPS) and a world without closed circuit television (CCTV) and smartphones. The integration of innovations such as mobile CCTV and facial recognition, spurred on by Defence and later commercialised, has meant we are living in a “Point of View” continuum. The unfeeling gaze never goes to sleep, and has become a subject of ethical, legal and socio-technical research. In this paper, we juxtapose Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire against the domain of “Uberveillance” as a way to help further explain the technological trajectory. What is it about the qualities of angels that differ so starkly from the machine-like prowess of pervasive CCTV? How is it that angels can see so clearly and so precisely with such deep understanding, and technology that is tasked to surveil and deconstruct can get it so wrong? The varied points of view depicted in Wings of Desire – the view from above looking down, at Street-level, and inside the private thoughts of a human – typify the spectrum of uberveillant capabilities. While it is deemed natural for angels to fly and be up close as guardians and protectors of human beings, there is something unnatural about the physical world being captured for playback in a virtual realm. What do we hope to achieve by this reality TV-style vision? Do we hope to store it all, every aspect and minutiae of life, every person’s eye view, every moment through time, to transcend through screens? Are we in some way abandoning the reason behind our existence, that is, to grow and to learn through experience? And are we forging ahead with an ‘unnatural’ path by seeking to explore and to interrogate our lives as bystanders through our creations? Wings of Desire provides a vehicle for discussing the pros and cons of uber views. Significantly, angels in this cinematic masterpiece are mere witnesses, and cannot intervene in the lives of those they observe, no matter what injustices they see, unless they decide to willingly ‘incarnate’. Machines on the other hand, are indiscriminate or at least subject to some outside input, they can autonomously trigger alerts and force decisions, making judgments about contexts, even if they are incorrect.

Organisers

SUFF and Sydney College of the Arts, the University of Sydney are pleased to announce the inaugural “Inhuman Screens” conference, which aims to open a conversation as to how technology has redefined the human. To this end, the conference examines all aspects of contemporary screen ecologies, including frontier technology, social media, theories of screen culture, contemporary art, and other engagements with digital technology and posthumanism.

Katina Michael is a Professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and the School for Computing, Informatics & Decision Support Engineering at Arizona State University. Katina heads up a Centre on Engineering, Policy and Society. She also holds a dual appointment at the University of Wollongong. Katina researches the social implications of technology on society.

A presentation delivered for the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. A lot of the slides are based on Ryan Abbot and Bret Bogenschneider with a major influence in perspective from Moshe Vardi. Sources compiled through my own searching.

Amazon currently employs 125,000 people, it recently put its 100,000th robot to work.

We use a model of automation to show that with the current U.S. tax system, a fall in automation costs could lead to a massive rise in income inequality. This inequality can be reduced by raising marginal income tax rates and taxing robots. But this solution involves a substantial efficiency loss for the reduced level of inequality. A Mirrleesian optimal income tax can reduce inequality at a smaller efficiency cost, but is difficult to implement. An alternative approach is to amend the current tax system to include a lump-sum rebate. In our model, with the rebate in place, it is optimal to tax robots only when there is partial automation.

Existing technologies can already automate most work functions, and the cost of these technologies is decreasing at a time when human labor costs are increasing. This, combined with ongoing advances in computing, artificial intelligence, and robotics, has led experts to predict that automation will lead to significant job losses and worsening income inequality. Policy makers are actively debating how to deal with these problems, with most proposals focusing on investing in education to train workers in new job types, or investing in social benefits to distribute the gains of automation. The importance of tax policy has been neglected in this debate, which is unfortunate because such policies are critically important. The tax system incentivizes automation even in cases where it is not otherwise efficient. This is because the vast majority of tax revenues are now derived from labor income, so firms avoid taxes by eliminating employees. Also, when a machine replaces a person, the government loses a substantial amount of tax revenue—potentially hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the aggregate. All of this is the unintended result of a system designed to tax labor rather than capital. Such a system no longer works once the labor iscapital. Robots are not good taxpayers. We argue that existing tax policies must be changed. The system should be at least “neutral” as between robot and human workers, and automation should not be allowed to reduce tax revenue. This could be achieved through some combination of disallowing corporate tax deductions for automated workers, creating an “automation tax” which mirrors existing unemployment schemes, granting offsetting tax preferences for human workers, levying a corporate self-employment tax, and increasing the corporate tax rate.

Whether a robot tax might even be needed. I.e. how quickly are robots going to replace workers

How such a robot tax might work.

What are the arguments for or against it.

https://www.techemergence.com/robot-tax-summary-arguments/

When is a Robot a Robot for tax purposes?

Gates simply suggested that “some of it could come on the profits that are generated by the labor-saving efficiency there. Some of it could come directly from some type of robot tax.”

A segment of a proposed motion in the EU parliament which was rejected simply called for looking at, “levying tax on the work performed by a robot or a fee for using and maintaining a robot should be examined in the context of funding the support and retraining of unemployed workers whose jobs have been reduced or eliminated.”

Levying a fee on each robot sounds much easier in theory than it practice. How would we define “robots” for these tax purposes? What separates a tool from a robot or a complex computer program from AI? For example, a backhoe replaces human ditch diggers, but few people consider that a “robot.”

Is a vending machine a human-replacing robot? What about a vending machine that can automatically alert its owner when it is out of a product? What about a vending machine the size of a small store that can automatically stock itself and answer complex questions from customers?

If a country did try to place a fee on actual robots, it is likely it would be difficult for some companies to avoid the tax. Manufacturing robots, self-driving cars, delivery drones, and anything that looks like a classic “robot” or clearly replaces a specific category of job would likely be hit.

But there are a lot of marginally robot-like tools that manufacturers would aggressive lobby policy makers to exclude from the tax. Alternatively, manufacturers could modify the tools just enough to exploit some loophole in the definition of a robot.

Approaches to a Robot Tax

For example South Korea reducing the tax incentives for investing in automation is called a robot tax. It is possible to imagine the “robot tax” taking the form of higher taxes certain types of productively enhancing developments and/or the form of big tax breaks for companies that keep the size of their workforce stable each year.

A “robot tax” could also maybe take the form of a tax that target companies with high profits/revenue but small workforces. Something like a worker to profit ratio could serve as a proxy for deciding what company are making use of a lot of automation.

Why Should We Start to Tax Robots that are taking Human Jobs?

That’s because automation allows firms to avoid wage taxes, which fund social benefit programmes such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in the US, or National Insurance contributions in the UK. Firms are mostly responsible for just paying wage taxes for human workers to their governments.

In the US at least, there is a further incentive to automate because firms can claim accelerated tax deductions for automation equipment, but not human wages. Wage taxes are generally only deductible as paid. This structure allows firms to generate a significant financial benefit from claiming significant tax deductions sooner for robots.

Automation also results in indirect tax incentives. For instance, human workers are also consumers who are responsible for paying consumption taxes, such as retail sales tax (RST) in the US or value added tax (VAT) in the UK. Employers are generally thought to bear at least some of the cost of these taxes, as they may have to increase salaries in response to higher taxes on workers. Because robot workers are not consumers, they are not subject to these indirect taxes and so firms can avoid any associated burden.

Perhaps most concerning, these policies result in dramatically reduced tax revenue for the government. That’s because most government revenue comes from wage and consumption taxes. Corporate taxation now represents less than 9% of the overall tax base in the US and is likely to significantly decrease following the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

When firms replace people with machines (or elect to automate initially), the government loses the ability to tax workers. This is not compensated for in the form of higher taxes on corporate earnings. In the aggregate, this could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in lost tax revenues if robots replace workers to the extent predicted by many experts.

Why Taxing Robots is Not a Good Idea

He argues that today’s robots should be taxed—either their installation, or the profits firms enjoy by saving on the costs of the human labour displaced. The money generated could be used to retrain workers, and perhaps to finance an expansion of health care and education, which provide lots of hard-to-automate jobs in teaching or caring for the old and sick.

A robot is a capital investment, like a blast furnace or a computer. Economists typically advise against taxing such things, which allow an economy to produce more. Taxation that deters investment is thought to make people poorer without raising much money. But Mr Gates seems to suggest that investment in robots is a little like investing in a coal-fired generator: it boosts economic output but also imposes a social cost, what economists call a negative externality. Perhaps rapid automation threatens to dislodge workers from old jobs faster than new sectors can absorb them. That could lead to socially costly long-term unemployment, and potentially to support for destructive government policy. A tax on robots that reduced those costs might well be worth implementing, just as a tax on harmful blast-furnace emissions can discourage pollution and leave society better off.

Yet in an economy already awash with abundant, cheap labour, it may be that firms face too little pressure to invest in labour-saving technologies. Why refit a warehouse when people queue up to do the work at the minimum wage? Mr Gates’s proposal, by increasing the expense of robots relative to human labour, might further delay an already overdue productivity boom.

But as machines displace humans in production, their incomes will face the same pressures that afflict humans. The share of total income paid in wages—the “labour share”—has been falling for decades. Labour abundance is partly to blame; the owners of factors of production in shorter supply—such as land in Silicon Valley or protected intellectual property—are in a better position to bargain. But machines are no less abundant than people. Factories can churn out even complex contraptions; the cost of producing the second or millionth copy of a piece of software is roughly zero. Every lorry driver needs individual instruction; a capable autonomous-driving system can be duplicated endlessly. Abundant machines will prove no more capable of grabbing a fair share of the gains from growth than abundant humans have.

Waves of automation might necessitate sharing the wealth of superstar firms: through distributed share-ownership when they are public, or by taxing their profits when they are not. Robots are a convenient villain, but Mr Gates might reconsider his target; when firms enjoy unassailable market positions, workers and machines alike lose out.

Robots creating a wages and employment 'death spiral' warns IMF

The worst outcome under the IMF modelling is where robots only replace low-skill workers.

"While skilled labour enjoys continuous large gains, the wage for low-skill labour decreases in the short/medium run under conditions much weaker than in the benchmark model [where robots can do any job]," the IMF found.

"Nor is there any assurance that growth eventually raises the low-skill wage. Quite the contrary: there is a strong presumption the real wage decreases more in the long run than in the short run.

"The magnitude of the worsening in inequality is horrific."

Under the research modelling in this case, the skilled wage increases from between 56 to 157 per cent in the long run, while wages paid to low-skill labour drop between 26 to 56 per cent.

The low-skilled group's share in national income also decreases from roughly a third to as low as 8 per cent.

Even in the scenario where robots only compete for some jobs, and the impacts on wages and growth are reduced, the IMF paper said inequality gets worse.

"Allowing for tasks that complement robots does not help as much as one might think, partly because more and more workers compete for those jobs, driving down the overall wage.

"In addition to the fall in the average wage and the rise in the capital share, unskilled workers suffer large decreases in absolute and relative wages."

Even in areas where robots can't compete, the news isn't great from the IMF team.

"This also does not really help, again because there are only so many of those jobs to go around, and labour chased out of the automatable sector tends to drive down wages."

As for solutions, the IMF broadly targets two possible ways to limit mounting inequality: through education, and tax.

Sadly neither option looks overly promising.

While education can be seen as an investment to convert workers from unskilled to skilled labour, it has its limitations.

"Can it offset the huge real wage cuts unskilled labour suffers and the decrease in labour's overall income share at an acceptable cost? And if the answer is yes, how long will it take for wages to increase for those who remain unskilled?" the economists ask.

As for tax, as governments around the world are already aware, it is not easy to track down and get a fair share of the profits and capital accumulation of big corporations.

Data shows 7,456 debts were reduced to zero and another 12,524 partially reduced between July last year and March. At least 20,000 Centrelink debts were either wiped or reduced in a nine-month period, newly released figures show.

The disrupted digital frontier: How emerging technology of today will shape who we become tomorrow.

You are invited to join us in Sydney to hear our expert panel discuss disruptive technology and what it will mean for you.

Technology has created a state of perpetual revolution and is already disrupting traditional markets and social structures, changing the way we interact with the world around us.

Digital disruption will eventually affect every corner of Australian business and society. It will rewrite economics, scramble supply chains, blur category boundaries and make us question our ethics. How will your business be impacted and how will you respond to become a digital survivor?

Join our expert panel of University of Wollongong alumni and academics to explore the technological, social and economic impacts that these emerging technologies are having.

Meet our expert panel:

Professor Katina Michael, UOW alumna and Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, UOWProf Katina Michael’s contribution to the future of emerging technologies is vast and includes her editorship for the award winning Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Technology & Society Magazine from 2012-2017.

She is a Professor in the School of Computing and Information Technology at UOW and until recently she was the Associate Dean – International in the Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences.

Since 2008 she has been a board member of the Australian Privacy Foundation, and formerly the Vice-Chair. Prof Michael researches on the socio-ethical implications of emerging technologies. She has written and edited six books, guest edited numerous special issue journals on themes related to radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, supply chain management, location-based services, innovation and surveillance/uberveillance. In 2017, she was awarded the prestigious Brian M. O'Connell Award for Distinguished Service to the IEEE Society on the Social Implications of Technology (IEEESSIT).

Dr Michael holds a PhD in Information & Communication Technology from the University of Wollongong (2003) and a Masters in Transnational Crime Prevention (2009).

Dr Shahriar Akter, Associate Professor of Digital Marketing, Analytics & Innovation at the Sydney Business School, UOW.Dr Shahriar Akter was awarded his PhD from the UNSW Business School Australia, with a doctoral fellowship in research methods from University of Oxford.

He has published in leading business and management journals with a Google Scholar h-Index of 20 and more than 1800 citations since 2013. He received the UOW Vice Chancellor's award for teaching, a nomination for excellent research supervision and several prestigious awards for research. He has won various internal and external grants, including more than $100,000 in 2017, mostly for his research on business analytics of big data.

He was awarded the Paper of the Year Award in 2018 by Electronic Markets Journal for his research on big data analytics. Dr Akter is an advisory board member of WebHawks IT and is also the Chief Advisor of Digital Marketing Next that investigates digital, social and analytics applications. He is also a member of the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) and Institute of Analytics Professionals of Australia (IAPA).

Dr Alex Badran, UOW alumnus and co-founder, SpriggyDr Alex Badran left his job at Citigroup to co-found Spriggy - a mobile app allowing kids to manage their pocket money with the help of their parents. Spriggy launched in 2016 and now has over 100,000 members. The co-founders met while working as derivatives traders at Citigroup, and connected over the belief that financial institutions should do more to help their users live happier financial lives.

Spriggy was one of 10 start-ups selected in August 2017 from a highly competitive pool for the Austrade Landing Pad in Tel Aviv (a 10-day boot camp). Dr Badran was awarded Most Innovative Team in the 2017 Finder Awards and Best Banking Innovation, beating Macquarie Bank and AMP Capital in the category. He was recognised by his peers as an elected Non-Executive Director of Stone and Chalk (from November 2015-November 2017). In 2017, Spriggy raised a further $2.5 million of funding to grow its business, and currently employs 15 people, making Spriggy one of the most successful early-stage start-ups in Australia.

Dr Badran holds Bachelor of Mathematics Advanced and Bachelor of Mathematics Advanced (Honours) from the University of Wollongong.

Dr Thomas Birtchnell, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of WollongongSocial scientist Dr Thomas Birtchnell says mavericks are small groups of technology users who are early adopters and tend to take risks. Somewhat like beta software testers, they will poke and prod to find the limits of use and in many ways, lay the groundwork for how people end up using the product or service.

Dr Birtchnell says the problem with technology is that despite the grand pronouncements made by entrepreneurs and those who have a vested interest in the mass uptake of a technology, no one really has a clue how it will turn out. “Technology does not determine human actions; humans determine the application of technology. Social and cultural forces are just as important in the development of technology as economic or technical ones.” Technology doesn’t follow a linear pathway. Innovations are most often a combination of different things used in a new way, but those combinations are unknown and unpredictable.

He is an associate member of UOW’s Institute for Social Transformation Research: expanding our capacity to understand and engage with our social, cultural and geo‐political environment.

Kylie Cameron, UOW alumna and Senior Managing Consultant, IBMKylie Cameron is a digital strategist, facilitator and leader and an Associate Partner within IBM's Global Business Services Digital Team. She has over eight years of consulting experience working across industry sectors including retail, financial services, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, utilities, government, manufacturing, mining, and oil & gas.

Kylie's role requires her to work with stakeholders including media outlets to source relevant information; legal representatives to work through IP concerns; and with client analysts to define and implement a solution that supports their operations.

Intelligence agencies use cognitive technology in conjunction with other IT systems to increase the speed and efficiency of investigations. Cognitive technologies such as machine learning, pattern recognition and natural language processing tap into the explosion of unstructured data that can hold the key to breaking a case. Cognitive technology differs from traditional IT in how it’s set up and maintained as well as how users interact with it. As intelligence agencies implement cognitive solutions, they quickly realise the implications of these differences for their personnel, workflow and culture. But perhaps most significantly, cognitive technology affects the way users think. Analysts not only have more time to think because the technology helps them collect intelligence, but the technology also makes them think differently about how they do research and intelligence discovery.

Kylie holds a Bachelor of Information Technology from the University of Wollongong.

Dane Sharp, UOW alumnus and Digital Experience Manager, McDonald's CorporationDane Sharp is a successful, award-winning and highly skilled marketing, media, brand, product and digital manager. He has had the opportunity to experience many facets of business both locally in Australia and internationally and is currently the Digital Experience Manager for the McDonald’s Corporation.

Prior to this role, Dane held senior positions with Rip Curl, Under Armour and eBay. He has also had the opportunity to work closely with a partnership portfolio that includes Coca-Cola, Google, Apple, Telstra, Facebook, MySpace, Samsung, Woolworths, Target, Officeworks, Rebel Sport, Firefox, AFL, ASP/WSL, Tough Mudder, VML and DDB.

At McDonald’s, he leads a team that drives digital transformation for the business by developing and introducing innovation throughout the customer journey, identifying the most meaningful initiatives for customers and operators, and developing capabilities to bring them to life.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Wollongong majoring in Communications, Cultural Studies and Journalism.

The UOW Knowledge Series showcases University of Wollongong thought leaders in various locations, discussing a range of engaging topics. Previous knowledge series lectures can be viewed here.

Consumer electronics are “wants” bought by people who have purchasing power. These might range from human aids like calculators and robot vacuum cleaners to entertainment-driven electronics like smart TVs and tablets, to personal assistants like smart watches and fitness trackers. While most do not consider biomedical implants like heart pacemakers and brain pacemakers to be “consumer electronics”, by definition they are “a good bought for personal rather than commercial use”. The only paradox in this instance is that this suite of biomedical implantables are really “needs” as opposed to “wants”. Patients have a choice on whether or not to adopt this emerging technology, but most say that opting in is the only real option to maintaining their quality of life and longer-term wellbeing.

In the general consumer market, taking back a faulty product simply requires an original proof of purchase so an item can be validated as still being under warranty. In the case of biomedical implantables, a recipient simply cannot take back an implant for repair if it malfunctions. Biomedical implantables are willingly embedded in the body of a consumer by a surgical team, and require special expertise for removal, replacement or maintenance (i.e. upgrade). The manufacturer, for example, cannot conduct the removal process, but a surgeon with the right equipment and human resource support (e.g. nurses) can. In 2010, one supplier of pacemakers, Medtronic Inc., had to pay $268 million to settle thousands of lawsuits that patients filed after a 2007 recall of a faulty heart defibrillator wire that caused at least 13 deaths. In other cases, battery packs have failed causing disruption to consumer implants, and more recently we have witnessed software code security vulnerabilities in heart pacemakers which have meant that recipients had to undergo a firmware upgrade in a doctor’s office, a procedure that takes up to 5 minutes and is non-invasive.

On the one hand, these pacemakers are life-sustaining and life-enhancing to their recipients, on the other hand they place voluntary human implantees at some level of risk. The various types of risks will be considered in this presentation as will the impact of “recalls” on consumer implantees.

This Medtronic YouTube Video is shown in the context of this educational presentation under "fair use" rights. Gary's story demonstrates the positive and life-changing impact a DBS can have on one's life if they are suffering from Parkinson's Disease.

Now read about another Gary here. Two part interview will appear shortly in IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine.

A one-day expert workshop on IOT, focusing on the role of "soft law" in IOT governance. Attendance limit to 30 people. I will be presenting a 10 min talk on "Why Privacy Experts are Concerned about IOT?" and participating in the roundtable.

Gary is Distinguished Sustainability Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability; Regents' Professor and Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law and Ethics, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; Executive Director and Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science and Innovation.

What a wonderful opportunity to be at the 9th International Conference on Ethics in Biology, Engineering & Medicine since I was travelling to Florida for RFID2018. I have been trying to get to this conference for a number of years without success. Professor Subrata Saha began the conference series, and this year the host university was Florida International University. FIU's main campus is situated in Miami and this year the conference chairs were Subrata Saha and Zachary Danziger.

Keynote: Jonathan Moreno University of Pennsylvania

There are some people who can entertain and inform all in the same breath! Professor Jonathan Moreno is one of those people. A self-confessed historian of science rather than ethicist, Moreno breaks down decades of research in minutes with his knowledge of history, science and technology, and national security. He officially holds the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor Of Ethics and is a professor in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy.

The following notes are from Jonathan Moreno's talks. I took the notes as accurately as possible but surely I have made errors on occasion of transcription, sentiment or context. For this I take full responsibility. But I managed to capture some of the audio of the presentation. Of the greatest value I received, is a reassurance that my own research in this space is richer for its multidisciplinarity, and while some may not see its relevance yet, the time is fast approaching (almost here now), where we will become preoccupied by ethics first and foremost in the development process of any kind of scientific or technological endeavour.

Mind Wars – Jonathan D. Moreno

Brain science and the military in the 21st century

National security and the brain before neuroscience

Psychopharmacology

Non-invasive imaging

Brain-machine interface

International law

Ethics

"The Silence of the Neuroengineers", Nature, 2004

Nasty attack on DARPA

Given up moral standing—what will be done with your work

Cheap shot at DARPA—figuring out to get prosthetic arms

Dual use and multiuse

Decide what purposes these devices should be put toward

Multiuse not just single purpose (consider importance of prosthetics)

The Era of “Big Neuroscience”

Simulate the human brain

Map activity of neurons

The Human Brain Project (Henry Markman—simulate human brain)

We’ll believe that when we see it!

Brain Initiative

Concerned about PTSD, TBI (traumatic brain injury) and dementia in general

Growth of FMRI

Imaging

Dozens of labs and postdocs, grants, publications

In Pharma world there is not a whole lot that people have to offer for these medical illnesses

Diagnostic based approach (DSM) or neuroscience-based?

Epistemological debate

Not much in pipeline (severe depression, schizophrenia) with standard drugs

Pharma buy up small companies that specialise in one or two drugs

PENN Research

Centre for Neuroscience

Neuroscience bootcamp—teach about the brain

Growth in publication in 1990s was explosive and now continues

Corporate room—law—dalga test for scientific evidence

Cognitive Neuroscience Funding (US Defense, 2011)

Army $55 million

Navy $34 million

Air Force $24 million

DARPA >$240M

Margaret Kosal, Georgia Tech (5/12/11)

White House BRAIN INITIATIVE FY 2014 (soft side of neuroethics)

Examples of DOD Research Programs, 2016

Human, Social, Cultural, Behavioral MOdeling (HSCB)

Army Research Office, Life Science

Direct neural interfacing

The US Third Offset Strategy $18 Billion FY 2017

Wonky defense department strategist term

1st offset is Atomic Bomb

2nd offset was Guided Missiles (First gulf war)

3rd offset a grab bag, term of convenience, computational neuroscience, what are they doing in general

Getting human cells… neural organoids into rat brains to see if they can get a smarter rat?

What about the AI world—IBM has a computer beating Go? Why are we not worried with IBM? Why is there NOT a committee?

Driverless cars? Insurance, risk question at the heart…

Computers cannot recognise INTENTION

Biggest issues are not consumers but national security

Wellcome Trust

The Dana Foundation

The Greenwall Foundation

History and Sociology of Science (Penn Arts and Sciences)

Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

National Institute of Health

Richard L Wilson from Towson University delivers talks at BEC

Technical Problem: Big data is being introduced in the insurance industry which brings about increased regulations and restrictions regarding customer privacy Technological artefact, happens to be a watch. Uses it to self-medicate. And then they join a group on Facebook, and the individuals in the group self-medicate. There is no IRB board for recommendations they are making.

Ethical Question: Should insurance companies have access to the personal information, including health information, that is tracked on the wearable technology devices?

What is a wearable technology? A category of technology devices that can be worn by a consumer and often include tracking information related to health and fitness

Wearable Tech and Your Health Wearable tech are becoming increasingly popular Wearable tech can monitor live movements, heart rate, activity levels No estimates Can calculate risk 2016: 275 million devices sold; 2017 have about 332 million

Health insurance companies Ethical egoism Rights based ethics Users concerned about lifelogging (family medical records) being accessed which could result in increases or decreases in premiums

Anticipatory: future- what is it going to look like?Corporations making the devices Utilitarinism: if you do what we tell you we will increase happiness and reduce harm/sadness Surveillance capitalism Created as a way to track users User agreements are important 3Billion in 5 hours… selling what you have given them! The info begins to the company, but data breaches and the changing landscape of the big data create new opportunities

Lawmakers and governments Rights-based ethics: within a persons right to refuse sensitive data to insurance companies HIPAA regulations, the rights of wearable users to refuse their health data to private and government insurance

Barriers to Overcome We need readjustment of ethical principles Can insurance companies use your data without permission Someone at work make you track yourself

Recommendations If not required by insurance companies have access to data on wearable technology, user should sign a consent form Universal healthcare- do not overcharge healthy people Government has responsibility to keep people healthy

What is an autonomous surgeon?- Robot capable of performing multiple surgical procedures without the need of constant human intervention- Uses feedback devices such as cameras, sensors etc

Recap Over 40K surgeries have been robot aided in the last year Programmed to minimise doctor’s intervention Most common is the da vinci Cost 1.7 millionComplex surgeries Not ready for human trials

Where the field can go Use teleoperated for operations overseas where doctors are unavailable Possible that surgical robots can replace surgeons altogether Program robots to perfom surgeries with no assistance Personalised surgery robots

Primary stakeholders Surgeons Patients Patients who have off site surgeries

SecondaryTechnical Problems They are costly Some surgeries provide NO benefit for using the robots What is there is a disconnect mid surgery If autonomous and something goes wrong no doctor will be present to fix it Possibility for hacking/and or sabotageIn the Loop- human controlOn the Loop- sight of humanOut of the Loop- no human involved

Social Problems Could conflict with beliefs Automatonophobic individuals Some Amish, memmonite etcAn option for the patient to choose whether or not an autonomous surgeon performs their surgeryPublish the trial testing and trial data to the publicE.g. dentist example

Ethical Problems Responsibility in the event of an undesirable outcome Non-sentient machines having control over human morality Alternative motives by programming (intentional harm or death)

Pre-establish legal liability prior to the start of the surgical processMaintain human surgeon oversightRequire registration of robots and periodical assessments to ensure programming and function

Some of them linked with materials (may not be able to guarantee neural function). The materials of the implants should last for lifetime of person. Regards of doing neuralstimulation, you don’t expect this problem… not electronics… but stimulation – how will last that for a lifetime.

SCIENCE FICTION on NETFLIX television series: Altered Carbon… chip on back of your neck to live forever… take chip out and put back… based on a book with the same title written by Richard K. Morgan

* The graphics from Altered Carbon are placed here in so far as the television series was mentioned by the presenter, simply as futuristic visions.

Reuse of cardiac pacemakers in 3rd world countries… ethical issues…

Inline connector designs

For now just hoping to get sensation back to upper arm for those who have lost it, so they feel that their hand or their prosthetic is actually a part of their body. Using same approach as cochlear implant but for upper arm.

ANS Team at FIU Rocks

The Adaptive Neural Systems Laboratory team headed by Dr Ranu Jung is an exceptional team with a young dynamic group. Looking at the biographies of this team, quite a few of the researchers, including Dr Jung had long standing careers at ASU. Their work is truly inspiring and groundbreaking, and students/ grad students/ and staff have a deep awareness of ethical issues. It is exciting to meet teams like this at conferences who take philosophy and ethics so seriously.

Veracity: dentist-patient relationship based on trust and truthfulness

· About 36% of schools ONLY teach this

What happens when a patient comes in and has issues with sensitivity in front teeth… teeth issues, decay, cannot pay… anxiety as victim of domestic violence… temporary crown… and then dismiss… what do you do?

Corporations have a different view of science- one of many inputs to production

Science just one of inputs into production function …. Lead, asbestos, BPA, tobacco (lobby against)

IARC, WHO Report 2000

DSM-IV: panel members had conflicted interest when they produced categories

100% panel on mood disorders, schizophrenia etc.

“On the Take”

Jerome Kaiser

Conflict of interest and scientific journals

Can you believe what you read

Funding effect in science

The Monsanto Litigation

Specialised cancer research arm of the WHO, reached a determination chemical glyphosate-based herbiside

More than 270 of the cases have been consolidated multi-district litigation for oversight by 1 judge in the US District court of San Francisco

3,500 plaintiffs

Multi district litigation

Monsanto’s Web site on Glyphosate—does not have adverse effects to humans, wildlife and environment (hodgkins lymphoma IHL)

Rightoknow web site

Corporate behaviour

Ghost writing: that is how they do business. EPA referenced. Determination 2016, glyphosate was not likely carcinogenic

They hired Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy

Undo influence of regulatory agencies

Undo scientific journals…

Unethical to ghost write journals!

It was published by Toxicology articles

William Heydens… disclosed this

Editor in chief got money for this from Monsanto!

JFCT- retract or remove the journal… paper retracted after 1 year

“results were not definitive”… paper retracted but as soon as it was another journal published the article

Who should a journal editor review—an employee of Monsanto review a paper about Monsanto

When vital public health reports are published in refereed journals there is a heightened expectation that they meet professional standards of scientific integrity. Those standards include full disclosure of conflicts of interests…. Sources of funding….

The Lancet--- 3 positive reviews, and one so-so… “not a priority to publish”

My Disney Experience – Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What information should I know about my privacy and MyMagic+ at Walt Disney World Resort?

A. MyMagic+ is designed to make your visit to the Walt Disney World Resort (the “Resort”), and other participating operations within the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts business segment, even more immersive and personalized. If you choose to participate in MyMagic+, we will collect information from you online and when you visit the Resort. Because many features of MyMagic+ are new, you might have questions about the information we collect and how we use it to deliver your experience. Below are answers to questions you may have. We value our guests and are dedicated to treating the information you share with us with care and respect. As we continue to enhance the park experience and develop new ways of interacting with you, we will update these FAQs.

We also collect certain information from you while you are at select locations throughout the Resort through means other than the My Disney Experience website or mobile app. The following Privacy FAQs address aspects of MyMagic+ that may be of interest to you.

What are the RF Devices used for MyMagic+?

The benefits of MyMagic+ are delivered using either radio frequency (RF) technology-enabled MagicBands or RF cards ("RF Devices"). The RF Device you receive is unique to you and allows us to authenticate you and the benefits associated with you.

You can use your RF Device to enter the theme parks and water parks and to redeem FastPass+ selections if park admission entitlements are associated to your RF Device, to access your room if you are staying at a Disney Resort hotel, and to make purchases at select Resort locations. And, if you choose to use a MagicBand, it can add a touch of magic to your vacation by unlocking special surprises, personalized just for you, throughout the Walt Disney World Resort.

How do the RF Devices work?

Each MagicBand contains an HF radio frequency device and a transmitter which sends and receives RF signals through a small antenna inside the MagicBand. Each RF Card contains a passive HF radio frequency chip. Some of your benefits will be unlocked by "touching" your MagicBand or card to short-range reader touch points located at the Resort, including access to your Disney Resort hotel room, entry to a Disney theme park or making purchases at select Resort locations. The MagicBands can also be read by long-range readers placed in select locations throughout the Resort used to deliver personalized experiences and photos, as well as provide information that helps us improve the overall experience in our parks.

Guests can participate in MyMagic+ and visit the Resort without using the MagicBand by choosing a card, which cannot be detected by the long-range readers; however, certain features of MyMagic+ are dependent upon long-range readers, including automatic delivery of certain attraction photos and videos and some personalized offerings, which are only available to guests using a MagicBand.

The RF Devices are not GPS-based and do not enable collection of continuous location signals. Instead, MyMagic+ uses both short- and long-range readers located within the Resort to deliver the benefits of MyMagic+.

The RF Devices themselves do not store your personal information. Rather, your RF Device contains only a randomly assigned code that securely links to an encrypted database. This allows us to associate your RF Device with the benefits you have purchased and to collect information regarding your interactions with the various RF Device readers located at the Resort.

What information is collected through your use of the RF Devices and how is it used?

We use the information collected in connection with MyMagic+ to deliver the best possible guest experience. For example:

When you use your RF Device at touch points (e.g., for Disney Resort room entry, park admission, FastPass+, and purchases at select Resort locations), we are able to record your transaction and, when necessary, make the appropriate adjustment to your account.

The long-range readers will be in specific locations to enable the delivery of attraction photos and videos and personalized offerings.

Your interactions provide us with information about the products and services you experience in the Parks; your wait time for rides, restaurants and other attractions; and similar types of information.

If you sign up on the My Disney Experience website or mobile app to receive special email and/or text message alerts during your Resort visit, we may use information collected through your use of the RF Device to fulfill your request.

We may also use the information we collect through your use of the RF Device to send you information about products and services that we think may be of interest to you, but you can always choose not to receive marketing information from us. We will not use information collected in connection with MyMagic+ to personalize or target advertising to children under age 13.

Aggregate information can be used to better understand guest behavior and make improvements to the guest experience (e.g., managing wait times and improving traffic flow).

How is information collected through your use of the RF Devices shared?

We may share information about your experiences at the Resort with other members of the Walt Disney Family of Companies, but you can always choose not to receive marketing from us.

However, information about your specific park experience collected automatically when your MagicBand is read by long-range readers will not be shared with other members of the Walt Disney Family of Companies to use for marketing purposes unless you elect that we do so.

We will only share information about you that is collected automatically when your MagicBand is read by long-range readers with third parties for their marketing uses if you elect that we do so.

What choices are available regarding information collected through your use of the RF Devices?

Guests participating in MyMagic+ have a choice about how their information is used for marketing and can choose not to receive marketing information from us by opting out of receiving such communications. MyMagic+ also allows guests to receive offers and tips during their visit to Walt Disney World, but only if they request them from us.

We will not use information collected in connection with MyMagic+ to personalize or target advertising to children under age 13.

Are all guests required to participate in MyMagic+?

Guests can enjoy admission to the parks without having to participate in MyMagic+, register on the My Disney Experience website or provide any personal information. Guests who choose to participate in MyMagic+ and register on My Disney Experience will be able to use the FastPass+ service, make dining reservations online, and enjoy the convenience of having their tickets, FastPass+ selections, Resort room access and other enhanced features all in one place. Guests participating in MyMagic+ always have the option to use a card instead of a MagicBand. Guests can also choose whether to use their RF Device to make purchases at select Resort locations.

Can I use my RF Device after my vacation?

Guests can keep their MagicBand or RF Card after their vacation and may use it on a return visit to the Resort. In addition, from time to time, members of The Walt Disney Family of Companies may introduce products or services that can recognize the RF Devices and deliver experiences or value outside the Resort if the guest chooses to use their MagicBand or RF Card for those purposes. Information will be collected in connection with such use of the RF Devices only if the guest chooses to avail themselves of such products and services. RF Devices are intended for use in the United States only.

What is the Ticket Tag service and what information is collected through it?

We offer the convenience of Ticket Tag at the entrance of many of our theme parks and water parks. Ticket Tag helps to facilitate ease of re-entry into our parks and helps prevent fraud.

In order to use Ticket Tag, you simply place your finger on a reader. The system, which utilizes the technology of biometrics, takes an image of your finger, converts the image into a unique numerical value and immediately discards the image. The numerical value is recalled when you use Ticket Tag with the same ticket to re-enter or visit another Park. Ticket Tag does not store fingerprints.

Are all guests required to use Ticket Tag?

If you don't want to use Ticket Tag, you can simply carry and show a photo ID that matches the name identified with your ticket.

How do we keep the information we collect secure?

The security, integrity and confidentiality of your information are extremely important to us. We have implemented technical, administrative and physical security measures that are designed to protect guest information from unauthorized access, disclosure, use and modification. From time to time, we review our security procedures to consider appropriate new technology and methods. Please be aware that, despite our best efforts, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable.

Where can I get more information?

You can learn more about our privacy and data collection policies by visiting MyDisneyExperience.com/privacy. You may also contact Guest Services at 407-WDISNEY (407-934-7639).

Primary carers of people who wander have a substantial onus to keep their loved ones and clients safe. Though patterns of wandering differ between various stakeholder types in various contexts, the two main design points include:

Ensuring an individual does not go beyond the perimeters of a home (in-building) or a facility (on-campus)

Ensuring an individual who has wandered can be found quickly (usually traversing a public space).

Wandering about a public space is one of the freedoms people enjoy about being alive. Whether it is a brisk walk to the local park, a bus or train trip to the beach, or aeroplane travel to various parts of the world, we can all enjoy the world around us. Walking does not require any token, travel often requires a ticket such as a TravelPass, and flying a passport with an appropriate VISA. People who wander usually do so on foot or by public transport. This session tries to narrow in to the potential for using RFID/NFC, facial recognition, and GPS to trigger mobile alerts when someone has wandered outside a minimum bounded area.

Children with autism for example, have often escaped their homes, only to find themselves in danger, either from oncoming traffic or from deep waters. Those suffering from varying levels of dementia have found themselves on public transport or disoriented at the wheel. Quite often wanderers frequent paths they know well. Wanderers who are in urban centres can have a very different experience to those in regional or rural settings. Context awareness is paramount for a carer. Is there a lake nearby? Is their busy traffic outside the family home? Is the wanderer known to people in the local community like café owners or train station attendants?

Since the early 2000s, various kinds of technological solutions have attempted to help those in need in various markets. Though we are making major inroads into what we have termed hierarchical positioning systems, most systems seem to fall short and so we still have many reports of wanderers falling to their deaths, or drowning, or suffering some other plight. The anguish for carers is significant. There is no respite for them, and the responsibility takes a grave toll on individuals.

This session will explore how technologies could be utilized to monitor people in need within the family home or institutional facility (e.g. wearing RFID/NFC tags) and furthermore how once traversing a public space the wanderer can be located. A number of factors can impact findability: morphological conditions, the individual’s agreement to wear a device, how to respond to mobile alerts once a trigger has been executed.

Of these children, 74 percent run or wander from their own home or from someone else’s home, 40 percent run or wander from stores and 29 percent run or wander from schools. Close calls with traffic injuries were reported for 65 percent of the missing children and close calls with drowning were reported for 24 percent of the missing children. Running and wandering in children and teens with autism takes an enormous toll on families and caregivers, Schumer said: 56 percent of parents reported running as one of the most stressful behaviors they have had to cope with as caregivers of a child with autism. And 50 percent of parents reported receiving little guidance on preventing or addressing this common behavior.

"Autistic children aged 14 years and younger are 40 times more likely to die from injury than the general pediatric population," Li said. Specifically, drowning accounts for 46% of all injury deaths among children with autism, which translates to 160 times the chance of dying from drowning compared to other children.

"The risk of drowning in autistic children peaks at age 5 to 7 years," Li said.

He explained that children with the disorder often feel anxiety, and wandering, especially toward water, is one way they seek relief. With 100,000 children newly diagnosed with disorders each year in the US, he added, "the first concrete step parents and caregivers could take to reduce the exceptionally high risk of accidental drowning is to enroll these children in swimming classes."

2. WANDERING AND SAFETY MAJOR CONCERNSPeople with autism are seven times more likely to encounter law enforcement; communication difficulties and atypical behavior can result in serious misunderstandings; people with autism are more likely to be victims of crimes; nearly 50 percent of people with autism wander or elope from safety; and accidental drowning accounts for approximately 90% of lethal wandering outcomes. To best address the safety needs of the community, Autism Speaks facilitates a two-pronged approach including Family Safety Fairs and Autism Awareness Training for First Responders.

Solutions

A recent study showed 49 percent of parents with a child on the autism spectrum had reported that child had wandered away. Of those, 65 percent were in danger of a traffic accident, and 24 percent were in danger of drowning.1

"You can put the security systems, you can put locks on the door - not just where the doorknob is, but also up high and down low. You have security cameras, motion defectors in the middle of the night," Laxton said.

"The national program partners with local first responders to connect caregivers of children and adults with cognitive disorders with wearable trackers.

Each device emits a unique frequency and a tracker can pick up a signal from it one to two miles away, which drastically reduces the time of a more “blind” search.

“For us, as a community, to have something like this, it truly is, has the capability of saving lives and being able to find people before it’s too late,” said assistant chief of police Brian Nugent.

In Hendricks County, the devices, which have a $350 up-front cost, are free for qualifying children and adults who tend to wander.

“Our goal is simply to reach out with these families, let them know this program is available and do everything in our power to facilitate that at absolutely no hassle or cost to them,” said Nugent.

Hendricks County first responders handle battery changes every 60 days and replacing cases and wristbands for free too.

The wearable isn’t just for when the wearer is in Hendricks County. The radio frequency transmitters can be picked up in another county too, as long as a nearby first responder has a tracker.

When families enrolled in the program leave the county for an extended period of time, the Project Lifesaver coordinator, Karen Hendershot, calls ahead to give the visiting county a proactive call with the wearer’s frequency information before they arrive.

No matter where the wearer is, the peace of mind gained by the caregiver relieves some of the burden of caring 24/7 for a person with a cognitive disorder, who tends to wander and is attracted to water.

“You could answer the phone or use the restroom,” said Denoon. “No matter what you try, there’s a possibility they could escape if they really want to. You can’t be with them 24/7 no matter how much you try.”

Other counties also offer the Project Lifesaver program, but many require parents or caregivers to pay at least part.

It’s only available in Hendricks County for free because of grants and donations."

One Piece GPS Tracking System product imageView the Product Brochure 390 KB PDF iconThe system features the ability to define inclusion and exclusion zones, animated and birds-eye-view mapping and the convenience of an offender wearing just one device on the leg. The system communicates certain events to the offender through vibrations and LED lights and can switch monitoring intensity modes remotely through software downloads, or automatically, per program rules definition.

3M™ One-Piece GPS Offender Tracking System features full house arrest supervision and will report technical events or violations of schedule restrictions, enabling agencies to apply home curfew restrictions in line with their program.

House arrest electronic monitoring uses radio frequency (RF) or GPS location technology to monitor the movement of offenders under home confinement. Electronic monitoring helps control costs by automating many routine supervision and recording tasks.Integrated Monitoring PlatformOur Integrated Platform enables operators to integrate monitoring tools and software modules onto a single platform. The platform solution makes the most of technology benefits, allows tailoring to program needs, and enhances overall value by reducing initial investment, lowering installation and support costs, improving system management and maintenance capabilities, and reducing training, and minimizing inventory requirements.

Home Curfew RF Monitoring SystemOur Home Curfew RF (Radio Frequency) Monitoring system monitors if the user is within a pre-set distance range during scheduled times. The system is highly configurable, flexible, tamper-resistant, and easy to use.

Shortcomings of Solutions

In early August the Department of Corrections revealed there were 18 people meant to be being tracked by the bracelets at large at once. Two more went on the run this weekend.

Child sex offender Daniel Livingstone is accused of breaking his electronic monitoring bracelet and going on the run.SUPPLIEDChild sex offender Daniel Livingstone is accused of breaking his electronic monitoring bracelet and going on the run.

Multinational conglomerate 3M took over the electronic monitoring of offenders here in February in a five-year contract reportedly worth $80 million. Soon afterwards it received a “please explain” letter from Corrections when problems were discovered, documents reveal.

The firm was dumped as the supplier of a different anklet to the state of California in 2012 after flaws allowed paroled rapists and murderers to trick or remove their monitoring bracelets.

In 2013 the Los Angeles Times

reported that batteries in the bracelets used in California failed, GPS signals were vulnerable to illegal jamming devices, the signal could be diverted if the anklet was covered in tin foil, or disappeared if taken into cars or buildings, that cases cracked and GPS locations could be off by as much as almost five kilometres.

The 3M spokeswoman said on Sunday that a different “premium” product was used in New Zealand.

”The 3M GPS bracelet strap is designed to provide the highest level of tamper detection and meet health and safety standards that require these bracelets to be able to be readily removed in case of an emergency.

Around the world, 3M’s devices were used to monitor 200,000 offenders, and the company was confident in the integrity and quality of its products, a spokeswoman said.

Corrections figures show there were more than 15,500 breaches of electronic monitoring conditions between 2008 and August 2015.

Wandering Adults

Today’s wander management technologies are also more affordable—and increasingly discreet.

“Dignity and privacy are major concerns. The system should be designed in line with the high-end designs of assisted living communities, and should support the quiet environment trend,” says Jon Ross, general manager, HomeFree Systems, Milwaukee.

Increasingly, solutions that allow staff to set up “hot zones” are becoming more popular, according to Besecker, because staff can redirect residents who enter a predetermined off-limits zone. Exit alerts and off-campus alerts also can be set on or off for an individual or group of residents.

“The system also can trigger door locks and other mechanisms to reduce the risk of elopement,” Besecker says, adding that silent alerts delivered in real time to staff pagers, smart phones or any other voice or data device already in use in the facility can help ensure immediate action by staff, without the need for disruptive, dignity-robbing alarms.

Preventing dangerous wandering and elopement is indeed critical, but more operators are opting for technology that can offer a second line of defense. Cellular-based tracking solutions, which operate via residents who wear a watch-like device that can be precisely located virtually anywhere within an existing cellular network, is one example of this added layer of protection.

“This cellular-based system can work indoors or outdoors, and can locate people quickly and precisely, even in buildings or places that would typically interfere with GPS locators,” says Jim Nalley, chief executive officer of EmFinders, Frisco, TX. The company’s EmSeeQ technology, developed in collaboration with law enforcement, is activated by a caregiver and utilizes the 9-1-1 emergency system.

Radio frequency identification and global position systems also are gaining momentum in the wander management segment.

“Extending the personal emergency response systems, there are systems on the market that can provide GPS tracking to help find individuals who end up wandering from a facility,” says Brian Jones, director, Aware Home Research Initiative, and senior research engineer for Georgia Tech’s Interactive Media Technology Center in Atlanta. “These technologies are more reliable than those we have seen in the past.”

Resident compliance is another critical factor. As sources explain, residents might try to tamper with or dismantle a wander management system, or they might attempt to remove the wristbands that track their location.

“Being able to know when the device is being worn or not is essential for any resident we want to feel secure,” says Besecker.

Because of the challenges associated with resident compliance, some vendors are now opting for GPS or RFID tags that can be easily and unobtrusively attached to a resident. The GPS or RFID device then alerts and guides the caregiver in the direction of the resident.

“Things like a departure alert placed above a doorway keeps track of [residents] and alerts a caregiver when there is unwanted wandering. Simple systems, such as mats that can be placed at doorways, also monitor resident wandering and prevent elopement,” Bingham says.

Safeguards neededEven the best wander management solution won’t be worth its salt if caregivers fail to use it properly. For starters, batteries must be charged or replaced regularly to ensure that resident-worn bracelets or pendants are working as intended.

“Batteries are always an issue with any system that is truly wireless, and especially for the wearable components,” confirmed Jones, adding that active location monitoring and GPS tracking will drain a battery much faster than a simple button press that’s activated by the resident on a PERS device.

Vendors are doing their part to keep systems working properly by using extended-use batteries and building in alerts for low battery power. Still, many operators are adding their own safeguards by incorporating battery checks into their monthly safety checklists to prevent any devices from slipping through the cracks.

Today’s wander management solutions also are being designed with expandability in mind. More than ever, vendors are creating systems that support a range of applications, including remote health monitoring and fall prevention and detection.

“By being able to add this capability to their resident monitoring solution, assisted living operators are able to keep residents in their community longer than they did in the past,” reasoned Ross.

Innovations in resident health monitoring solutions, along with passive or “sensor” technologies that can be used in resident rooms to alert staff to potential problems or resident changes, are further allowing facilities to enhance resident safety and response. According to Besecker, these passive monitoring solutions are more effective when used in conjunction with an active solution—with positive identification and authentication of the person wearing the monitor.

“Passive monitors lose their effectiveness when there are multiple people in the environment as assumptions will need to be made about motion, door sensor indications, common activities and so on,” she says. “These types of issues can lead to inaccuracy in reporting status and [potentially inaccurate] conclusions about the data.”

AngelSense provides caregivers a comprehensive view of their loved one’s activities, comings and goings. The device attaches to a loved one’s clothing and can only be removed by the caregiver. It provides a daily timeline of locations, routes and transit speed and sends an instant alert to caregivers if their loved one is in an unfamiliar place. Caregivers can listen in to hear what is happening around their loved one, can receive an alert if their loved one has not left for an appointment on time, allows caregivers to communicate with their loved one, and sends an alarm to locate your loved one – wherever they are.

Similar to the GPS Shoe and from the same designers, the GPS Smart Sole fits into most shoes and allows caregivers to track their loved one from any smartphone, tablet or web browser. The shoe insert is enabled with GPS technology and allows real-time syncing, a detailed report of location history, and allows users to set up a safe radius for their loved one.

iTraq is a tracking device that can be used to track pretty much anything – from loved ones to luggage, this tracker pairs with an app on a smartphone to find anyone and anything. For seniors, the device includes a motion or fall sensor and will send an alert if a fall is detected. It also has a temperature sensor. Their newest device, the iTraq Nano is marketed as the world’s smallest all-in-one tracking device that has global tracking, two months battery life, is water and dust resistant is able to be charged wirelessly. The device also has an SOS button that will send an instant alert to friends and family, notifying them of their loved one’s precise location.

This device was originally created to help emergency responders treat patients who could not speak for themselves. Today, the device also helps people with dementia who wander. The device is worn as a bracelet and when a loved one goes missing, caregivers can call the police and have the police call the 24-hour hotline to get the location of the missing person. Caregivers can also call the hotline themselves to get information. In addition to a tracking device, the bracelet has important medical information engraved upon it.

Mindme offers two lifesaving devices, one is a location device, the other is an alarm. The alarm allows the user to alert a Mindme response center in case of a fall or other emergency. The locator device is specifically designed for people with dementia or other cognitive disabilities. The simple device works as a pendant that can be put in a bag or pocket and allows caregivers to track the user online at any time. Caregivers can also set a radius for the user and will be alerted if the person travels outside that zone.

PocketFinder was founded in 2005 by a single parent who wanted to know the whereabouts of his young son, especially when he wasn’t there. Their slogan, “If you love it, locate it!” sums up their philosophy and service offerings. Tracking everything from luggage to pets to children to seniors, the company offers a wide range of emerging technological products. PocketFinder is designed to be the smallest tracker on the market and the device can fit in the palm of your hand. It has a battery life up to one week and allows caregivers to track wearers through a user-friendly app. The device was updated in January 2017 and now includes three location technologies including GPS, Cell ID and Google Wi-Fi Touch. It also now has an SOS button.

The mission of Project Lifesaver is “to provide timely response to save lives and reduce potential injury for adults and children who wander due to Alzheimer’s, autism and other related condition or disorders.” Seniors who are enrolled in Project Lifesaver are given a personal transmitter that they wear around their ankle. If they wander, the caregiver calls a local Project Lifesaver agency and a trained team will respond. Recovery times average 30 minutes and many who wander are found within a few miles of their home. In addition to the location device, Project Lifesaver works with public safety agencies to train them on the risks associated with wandering.

Revolutionary Tracker has location-based systems to keep tabs on seniors who may wander. The company strives to “bring an unparalleled level of functionality, capability, ease of use and relevant presentation of information to give people the ability to extend communication, knowledge, protection and care for their loved ones.” Their GPS enabled personal tracker features an SOS button for emergencies and offers real-time tracking. This device allows multiple seniors to be tracked at the same time and syncs directly to a caregiver’s smart phone or computer.

Safe Link is another GPS tracking system available for people with Alzheimer’s or dementia. The product promises to “increase safety for the elderly, promote independent living and ultimately lead to a healthier lifestyle.” Safe Link is a small device carried by the person who may wander. The device periodically sends its geographic coordinates to central servers and family members and caregivers can view the wearer’s location via website. The device needs to be charged and worn at all times. All devices have an SOS button for emergencies.

Trax is touted as the world’s smallest and lightest live GPS tracker. The device sends position, speed, and direction through the cellular network directly to your app on a smartphone. Trax comes with a clip that is easy to attach to a loved one. The app allows caregivers to set “Geofences” and will send an alert if a loved one enters or leaves a predetermined area. Trax Geofences have no size limit, caregivers can create as many fence areas as needed, and can schedule when those virtual fences are in effect.

Source: https://traxfamily.com/#

Alternate Technologies

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38247437

Photo from Workshop at RFID2018. More here: http://2018.ieee-rfid.org/workshopstutorials/

Radio-frequency identification (RFID) has been deployed in government mandated livestock identification schemes across the world since the 1990s. RFID in its basic function can help authorities identify animals, especially when traceability becomes paramount during disease outbreaks across regions. This session provides a view of how an RFID-enabled dairy farm can leverage mobile network infrastructure towards achieving total farm management. The data for the study was collected from two case studies, both NLIS (national livestock identification system) compliant dairy farms on the South Coast of New South Wales in Australia, soon after the NLIS was mandated. The Cochrane and Strong Farms were used as models to illustrate the core and auxiliary technology components of an RFID-enabled dairy farm. Beyond satisfying the regulations of government agencies for livestock to be a part of a national identification system for tracking purposes, farmers are now venturing beyond mere basic compliance systems. Once installed, farmers have begun to realize that their initial capital investment into an RFID system holds great strategic potential. The initial outlay while substantial is a once only cost that with a few more application-centric uses can yield a return on investment manifold. This workshop session provides an end-to-end view of the infrastructure and processes required to achieve an advanced RFID-enabled state-of-the-art dairy farm.

1.a) External Panel – the world in 20 years

This session will be a panel of experts discussing how the world, and NSW in particular, will change over the next 20 years. This will include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

· Demographics and population change

· Economic landscape

· Artificial intelligence

· Transport and urbanisation

Biography: Dr Katina Michael is with the Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences at the University of Wollongong. She researches emerging technologies and societal implications. One of her areas of interest has to do with screen time and the youth obesity epidemic. Today, Katina makes use of simple AI-based productivity tools to ensure work can be done while on the move. Katina is a senior member of the IEEE and has held several editorial roles, among them chief editor of IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, and IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine.

Dr Jo Mitchell- Executive Director - Centre for Population Health. Dr Mitchell is a brilliant leader who is thoughtful and reflective. I first met her at the ANZSOG Executive Program. Top talent!

Mr Paul Klarenaar introducing the Panel on Contemporary and Future Approaches to Health Promotion. He is the Director of the NSLHD (Northern Sydney Local Health District) Health Promotion. Paul is very future focused and does not hesitate to assess current and future modes of operation as they pertain to the community at large.

When I signed up to be a part of the NSW Health Promotion Annual Forum 2018, I did not know what to expect. Over 200 participants turned up, the vast majority were female. I contrasted this with an Engineers Australia talk I had given the preceding Thursday where only one female turned up to the lecture. Gender balance was therefore incorporated into my talk- we need more men entering the Health Promotions field, as we need more women entering the STEM field.

Comments from the Audience

“We were all saying that’s the best panel we’ve seen” and several people said you (in particular) were so inspiring and such a great communicator.

— Caucasian Male in his 30s

What I find disgusting is the x% we are given for health promotion budget and the increasing appetite behind technology that just keeps growing and growing- it really isn’t fair for the hardworking people on the coalface!

— Caucasian women in her 40s

One of the problems we have is retaining knowledge in the organisation. We are all contractors. And this is the biggest part of the problem.

— Aboriginal women in her 30s

We are supposed to work wonders from a shoestring budget. How does one do that? The way it works is that government allocates a slab of funding for health promotion contractors to work on. And once that money dries up, then that’s it. But problems are ongoing they don’t just disappear.

— Aboriginal women in her 50s

Thanks so much for a great talk. It seems to me you really hit on some major issues. We have a web site we have put together and we’ve used a strict methodology to incorporate community/user issues. We need more people to hear about it but it really is hard to get the word out given all the web sites online and discoverability.

— Caucasian women in her 60s

I was deeply disappointed about what person X said today regarding aboriginal culture and people. White people don’t get aboriginal culture to begin with and they are breaking with the culture with some of the things they are trying to achieve.

I have uploaded the slides of my presentation above. A whole workshop on this topic would have been possible, but somehow to condense to 1 hour.

Before anyone writes to me telling me that I do not understand the value of biomedical devices to patients, a disclaimer that I am ALL for implantables that markedly improve the quality of life of recipients. It is hard to argue against someone who has lived daily with severe dystonia, not to at least try deep brain stimulation as a way to have some semblance of a normal life. The same can be said for those who are battling Parkinson's Disease and Tourette Syndrome. I am a little more skeptical when it comes to brain pacemakers for Major Depressive Disorder, but there are signs that the technique is working for at least some patients. It is important to add, that brain pacemakers are not a cure for these diseases, physical or mental, they merely put at bay the symptoms of living with the disease.

So, yes, I accept prosthesis under obvious circumstances. Prosthesis by choice, that is when there is no restorative functional requirement, I am not a fan of. I really do not believe we should be fiddling with the human body. I do not rule out body pacemakers for health purposes, but still there, I would caution that we are nowhere near a clinically proven solution despite that some manufacturers have made their intention clear that they want all of us to be bearing implants for our own good.

When it comes to implantables for business applications, or indeed personal use (e.g. biohacking or citizen science), I become even more skeptical. Who would want an implant owned and operated by an employer or service provider? And furthermore, who would want an implant that is simply for personal use in a home location? In the case of the latter, it seems a lot of people want to be 'advanced' cyborgs using old tech, just so as not have to worry about physical access control mechanisms and carry keys for instance. As I have read quite often, "if you can wear it, why bear it?" Yes, I understand the issues of transferability, leaving it behind, or even losing it. But these issues can happen if the device is embedded as well.

For the time being the risks we are faced with differ because only a small number of people in the world have implantables for convenience. Interestingly however, there are now about 10% of Americans who bear some type of biomedical implant (joint, ear, heart, brain etc). As that percentage rises in the next decade, due to affordability, and an ageing population, there may well be more like 15-20% of citizens residing in more developed nations that bear an implant. Risk therefore becomes a huge topic of consideration.

In this presentation I am working from the angle that we have to know the risks that we are faced with today, and educate engineers and physicians and non-engineers (e.g. citizens) about why getting an implant is not a straightforward decision. When we look at the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics, there really is some excellent advice on ways forward:

Demonstrate integrity - respect the dignity of all persons

Practice competently - act on the basis of adequate knowledge

Exercise leadership - communicate honestly

Promote sustainability - practise engineering to foster the health, safety and wellbeing of the community

Audio of Event

There are 3 audio mp3's that accompany the presentation above. Please listen to each of these:

Katina Michael's opening introductory comments (30 min)

Andreas Sjöström of Sogeti (a division of CapGemini) single case study: 'What did I learn by implanting a chip in my body?' (20 min)

Katina Michael's closing comments and Q&A (15 min)

Event Flyer

Joint Institution Lecture Series: Microchipping People - The Risks

There is nothing new about placing materials into the human body for prosthetic purposes. Since 1959 when an internal pacemaker was implanted into a patient, we have seen a proliferation of biomedical devices made from different chemical compositions (e.g. chromium, nickel, cobalt, titanium). Over this time, the implants have become much smaller in size, some manufacturers are even calling for their insertion into every human for personalised medicine.

We hear that implants are now not only surgically placed in the heart or joints or ears, but since 1987 have made their debut also in the brain and retina. There are now a diverse range of use cases of passive implantable devices in the form of RF identification tags, marketed for multi-applications like identity tokens and physical access controllers. While we have a grasp of the known risks associated with biomedical devices, the risks associated with the open market of embedding microchips in voluntary participants is less understood.

Most do-it-yourselfer implantees will say: “if it’s good enough for my dog or cat, then it’s good enough for me”. Are the risks surrounding implantables (medical and non-medical) exaggerated or do we need further research to ascertain their short-term and long-term effects on the human body?

This presentation will discuss the risks associated with microchipping people for any reason, and will consider what the normalisation of biomedical devices for non-medical applications might mean in society at large in terms of risk.

About the Speaker: Professor Katina Michael, School of Computing & IT, University of Wollongong:

Joined UOW in 2002. Prior to joining UOW, Katina spent 5 years working at Nortel Networks as a senior engineer. She researches emerging technologies, societal implications, and national security. Katina is a senior member of the IEEE and has held several editorial roles, among them chief editor of IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, and IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine. PhD, MTransCrimPrev, BIT. www.katinamichael.com.